1996: Cox Communications begins exploring a local channel. It reaches deals to show some San Diego State Aztec games, and also provides coverage of the Republican National Convention in San Diego in 1996.

1997: Reaches an exclusive agreement with the San Diego Padres to broadcast games locally, taking over from KFMB-TV, which voluntarily relinquished its rights to the content. To carry the Padres, Cox establishes Channel 4, also known as Cox 4 or SD4. The deal makes sense for Cox because of the dual revenue streams of ad sales and basic cable subscriptions.

1998: Channel 4 ramps up to broadcast between 140 and 148 games a year, up from less than 100 games previously. Games that are not broadcast are usually weekday day games where Cox has difficulty selling ads. It reaches an agreement to broadcast University of San Diego basketball games that aren’t broadcast by other networks, which continues today.

2001: Cox Communications negotiates a 10-year extension with the Padres to broadcast the games through the 2011 season. The deal terms include five years with a five-year renewal option. Cox also provides access to Channel 4, for a fee, to Time Warner Cable around this time to show the games. Time Warner has cable systems in Central San Diego and North County. Time Warner does not compete directly with Cox.

2003/2004: Lawsuits filed by opponents to Petco Park downtown — which was already under construction — forced delays in the stadium project. When the Padres experience cash flow issues resulting from the delays, Cox makes a loan to the ball club.

2004: Cox begins broadcasting games in high definition. It opens its new production studio at Petco Park.

2007: AT&T begins selling its U-Verse television service in San Diego, competing with Cox for subscribers. Cox’s advertising revenue for Channel 4 reaches its peak. It hasn’t hit the same level since.

2008: AT&T files a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission, seeking to force Cox to negotiate access to Channel 4 at reasonable rates. The telephone company says without access to the Padres in its channel lineup, it’s at an unfair disadvantage in attracting subscribers in San Diego.

2009: The FCC denies AT&T’s complaint, AT&T appeals. Because of other controversial exclusivity arrangements for local sports involving cable companies in Philadelphia and New York, the FCC begins to look at closing the loophole in federal regulations that allows Cox and the other cable outfits to keep the Padres to themselves.

2010: The FCC closes the loophole in January, and AT&T asks the commission to rule in its favor on its pending complaint against Cox. In June, Cox announces that it would open talks with AT&T, DirecTV and others to license the Padres. Cox hires Fox Networks as its negotiator. With opening day less than two months away, talks continue.

2011: Channel 4 will broadcast the first Padres spring training games March 6 and March 7. There are also games scheduled March 9, March 13, March 21 and March 26. Plans for the season are the same as last year, with pre-game and post-game shows. Dick Enberg, Mark Grant and Tony Gwynn when available will be in the broadcast booth. Mark Neely will back up Enberg when he’s unavailable. Select games, such as certain San Diego State University football and basketball games and West Coast Conference Tournament games, also are part in the channel’s programming. Channel 4 has non-sports shows, too, such as Sam the Cooking Guy and San Diego Insider. Channel 4 is featured on all Cox tiers of cable coverage, including the most basic, $20 a month package.

Eight months ago, Cox Communications started talks to end cable’s monopoly for carrying San Diego Padres baseball games in the local market, bringing hope to satellite TV and AT&T U-Verse subscribers that they, too, would have access to Padres games for the 2011 season.

But with opening day just a month and half away, there has not been an agreement reached between Cox and other pay TV providers that would allow access to Channel 4, which carries the Padres games. The drawn out nature of the talks has led analysts to speculate that AT&T, DirecTV and others are balking at the per subscriber fees that Cox is seeking for Channel 4.

“I don’t have any inside information so this is purely conjecture, but I would say the overriding factor in play has to be the money,” said Mark Kersey of Kersey Research Strategies, a market research firm. “It sounds simple because it is.”

Analysts add, however, that sports programming is valuable, and companies that control the rights to that programming through either regional sports networks such as Fox Sports West or standalone deals such as the one Cox has with the Padres games are often in a position to demand top dollar.

“What’s going on is that sports has become the firewall against people cutting the cord on their cable service, so exclusive rights to these games are increasingly valuable,” said Will Richmond, president of Broadband Directions, a market intelligence and consulting firm for broadband video delivery. “Prices are going up. In turn, the owner of the TV rights is trying to charge a lot of money for distributors to get access to that content.”

For now, all sides are terse in their responses when asked about the status of talks. AT&T said in an e-mailed statement, “We don’t discuss the details of our programming negotiations.”

Robert Mercer, a spokesman for DirecTV, said, “We’ve been in discussions with Cox, but to date no agreement has been reached for carriage of the service,”

Cox, too, declines to comment. And a Padres spokesman also wouldn’t talk, although the ball club has said in the past that it would like TV games to be available to the widest possible audience.

“These types of negotiations in the pay TV world are buried under so many nondisclosure agreements, I would say only 20 percent of the time you figure out who is paying what,” said Mike Paxton, cable analyst with industry research firm In-Stat. “It’s in both of their best interests to keep things secret. If they’re overpaying, they don’t want anybody to know. And if they’re under paying, the service provider doesn’t want anyone to know.”

Federal law requires cable companies to offer access to channels that they own to competitors at reasonable rates. But for years the law contained a loophole that allowed cable operators to deny access to rivals if the channel’s video didn’t travel by use of satellite at some point between the TV studio and the consumers home.

Cox used the “terrestrial loophole” to keep Channel 4 from rivals. While it was willing to license access to Channel 4 to Time Warner Cable, which does not compete directly with Cox, it wouldn’t license the channel to DirecTV, U-Verse and others.

AT&T, which began offering U-Verse TV service in San Diego in 2007, complained to the Federal Communications Commission that without access to Channel 4 it couldn’t compete. It noted that the percentage of satellite TV households in San Diego ranked among the lowest in the nation — even though satellite companies had been competing in the market for years. Data from Nielsen Media Research seems to back up that claim.

Penetration for “alternative broadcast systems” in San Diego — mostly satellite TV — made up 14.1 percent of TV households, according to data released in November. That compares to a national average of more than 30 percent.

Federal regulators rejected AT&T’s official complaint, but its efforts, along with those of Verizon’s FiOS TV subsidiary and others who were fighting similar battles over local sports programming in other cities, led the FCC to repeal the loophole in January 2010.

The lingering talks are frustrating to some U-Verse and DirecTV customers. Rich Stow, operator of the Alpine Inn Restaurant and Bar, dropped Cox for his business about a year ago for DirecTV. He wanted to gain access to the NFL package that’s exclusive to DirecTV, and he believed the Padres were coming to the satellite provider.

With talks dragging on, he’s having a change of heart. “Baseball season is rapidly approaching and I may just go ahead and sign up for cable again in my bar area,” he said.

Kersey of Kersey Research Strategies said these programming disputes often get worked out at the last minute. “I would be a little surprised if a deal is not reached by opening day,” he said. “From AT&T’s perspective and DirecTV’s perspective, I think there is definitely a business case for them. Even if they’re overpaying a little bit, I think they’ll make it up on new subscriber revenue.” Last week, Time Warner Cable wrestled away rights to the Lakers games in the Los Angeles market from Fox Sports West and KCAL-TV — the latest example of the growing importance of local sports programming to pay TV providers.

The terms for of the 20-year deal were not disclosed. But Fox Sports West was paying $30 million a year for 35 games in the Los Angeles market. Time Warner Cable plans to carry more than 50 games.

One way Time Warner Cable is likely to earn back the price it paid for the Lakers is charge higher fees to other pay TV distributors in the market — DirecTV, other cable providers — to carry the channel in their line-ups when it launches in 2012.

Sports channels are already among the most expensive programming for pay TV providers. Richmond of Broadband Directions said he sat on a panel at a conference recently with Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks. Cuban put the price tag for sports programming for pay TV providers at $10 a month at the lowest digital tier — typically expanded basic service that includes ESPN, ESPN 2, TNT, TBS and Fox Sports or whatever regional sports network happens to be in the market.

Cable, satellite and telephone company TV providers mark up that programming to make their profits, Richmond said. “So in any given month, the average consumer to the lowest digital tier is probably paying $15 (of the typical $60 to $70 a month expanded basic cable bill) solely to access this small cluster of sports oriented networks. Distributors are starting to choke on those fees because the see the rates that they have to charge to their subscribers going up and up and up.”

That wasn’t the case when Cox took over the rights to the Padres games in 1997. It 2001, it renewed its rights to broadcast Padres games for 10 years. It offers Channel 4 to all subscribers, even those who get its bottom tier, $20 a month service.

But Cox’s ability to offer games to low tier subscribers might not survive. Its current contract with the Padres expires in 2011. There could be several bidders for the programming rights.

“The landscape has changed considerably” since Cox first began carrying Padres games, said Dennis Morgigno, station manager for Channel 4. “We’ve tried to keep it down on the lowest tier.”

It remains to be seen whether that will continue after 2011 if Cox is the successful bidder.